I Figured It Out; The Fall Of The Roman Empire

[barca]

Although Aurelian and Constantine formed a strong rebuilt empire, it was now based in Constantinople, and in my opinion this loss of a feeling of tradition and maintaining the former great had waned; why defend a Roman Empire if the capital isn't even in the traditional Rome anymore?

 

Don't forget that Aurelian allowed Dacia to fall into the hands of the Goths about 100 years before they were allowed to croos the Danube. In effect, the permanent settlements of Goths within the empire had already begun.

 

It is not clear to me what was going on in Dacia during the 100 years of Gothic occupation. The Goths certainly had access to any Roman ingfastructure that was there. They also must have learned much from may of the Romans that remained in Dacia under their rule. One thing is clear, the Romans lost a valuable recruiting ground. Many quality troops in the empire had been Romano-Dacian. As far as I know, no subsequent emperor made any attempt to reconquer Dacia. Constantine was too busy trying to "unify" the empire than to worry about the powderkeg that was sitting over the Danube.

 

If Constantine had used his energy wisely, he might have handed off a more stable empire to his successors.

A lot of resources were used in his bids to vanquish his rivals. I would have made more sense to work together and launch an invasion to recapture Dacia.

[Tobias]

True, i do agree. With a strong buffer province between the goths and the main areas of the empire, surely the goths and huns would not have had as much of an effect.

[Northern Neil]

Once again, we have a view that things after the third century are a debased and inferior thing than the equivalent that went before the third century. This has been the view ever since Gibbon, with respect to all things Roman, and it needs to be looked at with more analysis. Generally, people seem to simply 'not like' the late Roman army and its soldiers very much. Whilst they no longer wore Lorica Segmentata, gallic helmets or short haircuts, They had adapted, by 275, to meet the Persians on equal terms once again, and to defeat the Barbarians more often than not - something the Augustan style legions had consistantly failed to due throughout the third century. The changes and adaptations in the Roman army did not bring about the fall of Rome, they gave the Western Empire another 200 years of extended life!

[barca]

Generally, people seem to simply 'not like' the late Roman army and its soldiers very much. Whilst they no longer wore Lorica Segmentata, gallic helmets or short haircuts, They had adapted, by 275, to meet the Persians on equal terms once again, and to defeat the Barbarians more often than not - something the Augustan style legions had consistantly failed to due throughout the third century. The changes and adaptations in the Roman army did not bring about the fall of Rome, they gave the Western Empire another 200 years of extended life!

 

A valid point. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the increased strength of the barbarians from a decline in the legions. Even in the 4th and 5th century, the Roman "Legions" generally got the better of the barbarians when they faced them in battle. Adrianople was an exception rather than the rule. Even after Adrianople the Romans generally won the battles against the barbarians. It was more a matter of whether a Roman army was going to show up. For example all hell broke loose after Stilicho was killed. Subsequently, Aetius had some success in reconstituting the Roman army, but the same thing happened when he was executed.

 

How were the later Roman Legions different? I'm sure that there is someone more knowledgable who can add to what I'm saying, but here is my understanding:

1. Sword: at some pint in the third century they switched from the Gladius to the Spatha, a much longer sword. I assume that its greater length made it more effective against cavalry. It may have been less effective than the Gladius at close quarters.

2. The versatile pilum was replaced by two separate types of weapon. Smaller darts for throwing and larger spear or pike for thrusting or for defense.

3. I believe they switched from the Scutum to a more oval shield

4. Armor: I'm not sure when the Lorica segmentata was phased out, but it was replaced by other forms of armor that were certainly adequate. Although I doubt it was as good as the armor used by Trajan's infantry against the dacians (lorica + additional banded segments covering the arms)

 

In summary the infantry was somewhat different but probably not vastly inferior to that of the early empire.

It is my understanding that the decline in discipline and the reduced use of armor occurred after Adrianople.

Does anyone know what the makeup of Stilicho's army was? How much armor did they wear? What percentage of his army were Roman and Barbarian contingents?

[DanM]

I disagree. Part of the cause of the fall was the split of the empire. Also a lot of the leaders were mad or power stupid. The normal hardworking roman can't have changed that much either

 

This is a very good point, but it really does not contradict my point. The two events happened at the same time.

 

As the Empire centralized, taxes went up, corruption went unchecked and waste was rampant. At the same time, the holdings of the great senatorial families (especially those of the west) who paid little if any taxes increased by leaps and bounds. As such, the Empire faced the double whammy of a shrinking tax base and a less efficient means of using the resources it was able to collect.

 

When you couple that with the fact that the western empire had to double the size of its army due to external pressures along its border with german tribes and the fact that it could no longer rely upon the greater financial resources of the eastern half, then its easy to see why the western Empire fell. It simply collapsed under its own weight.

[Lex]

I

[DanM]

Actually I think the reason the Romans starting bribing barbarians to not attack them was because their army was no longer capable of protecting the borders. Look at Justinian's policy along the Danube river or against the Persians as an example.

 

As for the reasons that barbarians were being hired into the army to such a great degree, I think much of it has to do with the manpower shortage that came with what was most likely a declining population base. Many segments of the population were effectively barred from military service. For example, many landlords would pay an additional surtax to exempt their coloni from conscription. Also, the native troops that were raised had to be armed, fed and paid by a corrupt system that did not provide adequate resources.

 

As for Italy not being treated with enough respect, I have to disagree. By the 4th century it had become a liability. The amout of tax dollars that were spent on subsidies of food, wine and games for the city of Rome were staggering. I am not saying that Italy was a useless province, but short of reforming the giveaway culture and rampant entitlement programs, it could do little to contribute to the defense of the Empire.

[Northern Neil]

If the Empire had ended - as so nearly was the case - in about 270, then it could be argued that the adoption of Britons and Gauls into the army was the use of 'barbarian' troops. Earlier still, the use of provincial Italians rather than 'Real' Romans could have been regarded as such, if the Roman state had been vanquished in republican times. The Romans did not 'start' to use barbarians in its army in the third century - it always had used them, and due to manpower shortages that were always present. They simply ceased to be regarded as such as the Empire expanded, and they became Romanised. Perhaps if the Romans had viewed the immigrant Germans as Romans, just as they had other subject peoples prior to the 4th century, the debate as to wether or not 'Barbarian' troops caused the fall would not even be raised.

 

As early as Claudian times, Batavian (German) auxilliaries were used in the British campaign. Were these not Barbarians, by every definition of the word, just as Visigoths and Asding Vandals were? Again, Hamatic (Syrian) archers are to be found on Hadrians Wall in Severan times. Were they not, depending on fluctuations of the eastern frontier, sometimes barbarians, sometimes Roman provincials? The Illyrians, in the first century BC were regarded as subject, barbarian people - yet almost all the emperors of the late third century - including Constantine - were Illyrian. Was not Belisarius (Slavic for beautiful king) a Barbarian mercenary, or was he a newly promoted Roman patrician who was the saviour of the Empire in the sixth century? He certainly regarded himself as a bona fide Roman, as did Aetius, Stilicho and Valentinian I, all fanatical Romani, yet of Barbarian descent. All these characters defended the Empire with their lives, rather than took from it, and regarded themselves as Roman Soldiers. I am not saying that these ideas should demolish previously held theories, and they are certainly not my original theories - but they certainly deserve looking at more closely.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Once again, we have a view that things after the third century are a debased and inferior thing than the equivalent that went before the third century. This has been the view ever since Gibbon, with respect to all things Roman, and it needs to be looked at with more analysis. Generally, people seem to simply 'not like' the late Roman army and its soldiers very much. Whilst they no longer wore Lorica Segmentata, gallic helmets or short haircuts, They had adapted, by 275, to meet the Persians on equal terms once again, and to defeat the Barbarians more often than not - something the Augustan style legions had consistantly failed to due throughout the third century. The changes and adaptations in the Roman army did not bring about the fall of Rome, they gave the Western Empire another 200 years of extended life!

 

Augustan Legions were more than capable of destroying a Germanic army, the reason why they didn't is because they rarely fought against Germanics and when, after the civil war of the 200 AD, germanics became a problem the legions were in such a poor condition that they did have problem dealing with the germanics. Battles like Teutoburg cannot be counted.

 

Diocletian's and constantine's reforms of the army were mostly in the system of defence, instead of relaing on legions posted on the frontiers, late Roman army relied on limitanei to slow down the enemy so the Comitatenses could come to the assistance and deal with the barbarian attack. This system had its down sides as the limitanei lived in poor conditions camped on the frontiers while the Comitatenses lived in cities and so caused alot problems and loss of morale and discipline.

 

Mainly the difference in the equipment was the quality, late Roman army's infantry was equiped to fight with the cavalry so their equptement was lighter and armour, if any, was of poor quality because the money was going to the cavalry-arm by now. Tactics had remained relativly similar. Late Roman army's problem wasn't tactical, the army won several battles, but rather logistical. The later Roman army often had way too little men and the army was balantly expensive compared to the army of Augustus, because of the cavalry, which was the main weapon by now. Cavalry was effective weapon but pre-stirrup cavalry was extremely expensive compared to the heavy infantry.

 

The army was also cavalry centric and relied on heavy cavalry to make the desicive blow, the Augustan army relied on heavy infantry. No, late Roman wasn't crap, tactically, but Augustan legions were still better, I think.

[Primus Pilus]

Augustan Legions were more than capable of destroying a Germanic army, the reason why they didn't is because they rarely fought against Germanics and when, after the civil war of the 200 AD, germanics became a problem the legions were in such a poor condition that they did have problem dealing with the germanics. Battles like Teutoburg cannot be counted.

 

Indeed we can certainly see that the Imperial legions of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius fared quite well against various Germanics. Plague and war weariness left the job somewhat unfinished, but after Aurelius the Danube was relatively calm for almost 2 centuries.

[barca]

As early as Claudian times, Batavian (German) auxilliaries were used in the British campaign. Were these not Barbarians, by every definition of the word, just as Visigoths and Asding Vandals were? Again, Hamatic (Syrian) archers are to be found on Hadrians Wall in Severan times. Were they not, depending on fluctuations of the eastern frontier, sometimes barbarians, sometimes Roman provincials? The Illyrians, in the first century BC were regarded as subject, barbarian people - yet almost all the emperors of the late third century - including Constantine - were Illyrian. Was not Belisarius (Slavic for beautiful king) a Barbarian mercenary, or was he a newly promoted Roman patrician who was the saviour of the Empire in the sixth century? He certainly regarded himself as a bona fide Roman, as did Aetius, Stilicho and Valentinian I, all fanatical Romani, yet of Barbarian descent. All these characters defended the Empire with their lives, rather than took from it, and regarded themselves as Roman Soldiers.

 

Many peoples that were originally "barbarian" became roman. The Iberians, the Gauls, the Dacians and various others became very loyal Romans. This is reflected in the modern day countries that speak Romance Languages (latin-based) Although the Romans never fully conquered the Germans, they certainly occupied territories that included Germanic people. These present-day border states would include countries like Belgium and Switzerland that have both Germanic and Latin-based languages.

 

Generally speaking the Romans did not discriminate against race or national origin. Many of their subjects quickly adapted to the Roman system. It appears that in republic and early empire the various barbarians were more indoctrinated in the Roman way and essentially became loyal Romans. Why the late empire was not able to achieve the same success is not clear to me. I would think that Stilicho was as Roman as any other despite his barbarian ancestry. What made Alaric so different?

[Tobias]

I get the idea that Christianity made a lot of difference-many of these people were considered heretics

[DanM]

I get the idea that Christianity made a lot of difference-many of these people were considered heretics

 

The Christians did not bar decurions, many classes of artisans and many types of coloni from military service. That stuff came from the Emperors and the failed system of Imperial administration.

 

With some exceptions, soldiers generally were recruited either from the freehold farmers or from barbarians. As the freehold farmers became increasingly exploited by the tax collectors through overassessments, their numbers shrank. We have documentation of many free farmers who willingly became sharecroppers (coloni) so they could avoid the worst excesses of exploitation. The logic being that it was better to be the sharecropper for a powerful man and be under his protection than to be a free man who is fair game for the tax farmers who will charge a higher than legal tax rate with no fear of consequence.

 

As the numbers of free farmers declined, the number of available recruits declined too. When you combine that with the lower effective pay, worse rations and worst equipment, then it should be no surprise that the overall quality of the troops would decline.

[Tobias]

I mean that because they were seen as heretics these people were destined to be treated as inferior or misguided by the romans of this time - if some powerful nation started treating you as an inferior for your beliefs, i'm sure you wouldn't take it well, and these peoples certainly didn't take it lying down for long. At any rate, if you weren't christian at this time, you were at somewhat of a disadvantage, although as you said, much of the military were not devout christians or even christians at all.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The Late Roman empire after Diocletian was already a quasi-totalitarian state. Constantine and others might have used Christianity as an excuse to persecute people for political reasons.